Is God just? When we argue the curse is unjust, we need to place that comment against the justice of creation. Did we deserve to be created, to be born, to live? Was it just for God to create us? To ask if God is just, is in one sense, a nonsensical question. We base our answers on our own sense of justice. But we are not the creators; we are the created. It would be like asking whether it is just for us to eat the carrots we planted, or the chickens we raised, or the fish we caught.
Real justice for God is defined by God, not by us. It is in the same way as defining what is legal. What is legal is defined by the law, not by our perception of what should be legal.
The book of Job raises this question of justice in almost the best way, in the whole bible. As humans we have our perceptions of justice, but in the end, only God defines it. And it is understandable that we question this, but in the end, God is the standard, not us.
Is it just that Jesus died for all the sins of those who believe? No, it is not, because Jesus was without sin. Besides how could one man provide recompense for the sins of so many people? Yet, it is just, because God declared it to be just. Because Jesus was without sin, the only one without sin, only he could pay for the sins of others. A payment for sin is the justice demanded and required by God, and so God himself supplied this payment. As creator, he would and did, and for that reason alone, it was just.
It is in this context that the curse cannot be deemed as an unjust act by God, nor the flood, nor the slavery of Israel in Egypt, nor the 40 years wandering in the dessert and the plagues, nor many other bad things that happened to Israel, Judah and their kings. (and often to “innocent” people along the way).
It is the other way around. It is unjust for us to attempt to judge God, who made us (life from nothing), and who redeemed us by his own son/himself.
Great to hear you are active and happy at a ripe age - my mother is over 91 and my admiration at her spirit and ageless grace continue to grow each day. It is wonderfully life-affirming.
I believe that Incident II is the reason for the “decay of life as we know it in this sector of the galaxy”. I believe this as true because almighty Xenu declared it justice and propagated this truth through his prophet. An appeal to faith. What seemingly can’t be explained is declared to be secret knowledge of the one whose thoughts, actions and will cannot be fathomed.
Who are we, the painted (created) to question the painter (creator) when the painter deems the painted to be exterminated. We have no right to question. We have no right to call it unfair. Even if we were not involved in the wee corner of the painting where the color ran.
I tell you this, young Issac had all the right in the world to question his knife wielding father Abraham. If I had been Issac I would have run away and old near decrepit Abraham would never have caught me. And I would have declared on high, kiss my fanny man, I am not about to be some crazy sacrifice just because my old man declared it just.
Appealing to the myth of ecocide on a planetary scale as just because “sometimes to create, one {God} must first destroy.” God’s justice is unfathomable is unsound.
As I stated from the beginning. God has all four omni-states. Justice lends to the notion that fairness is leveled upon the guilty in the hopes that the guilty rehabilitates. Meaning one does not know if the guilty will rehabilitate or not. However, God knows the end from the beginning. He self declares:
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Revelation)
for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: (Isaiah)
there are more verses about this…
“I will do all my pleasure”… that is for sure in these myths. And that is all you appeal to in explaining the justice of your god.
Thus the curse of death laid upon all life forms is unjust for it has no purpose since God the omniscient, omnipresent, omni-benevolent, and omnipotent already knew and knows exactly what A&E, Lucifer were to do and our final destinies as well. Therefore from His perspective we don’t have free will. The fix is in. Either you and/or I (yes, me because I am a rebel like Lucifer and maybe God only likes rebels and the bible is false and you chose the wrong path) will be accepted into the new heaven and the new earth (Revelation) and God already knows this. But we still have to, along with all the other life forms that had nothing to do with the fall of A&E, live, suffer and die because A&E misbehaved one time.
And all Satan has to do in this mix is say, “I am not going to play this game.” and the bible story of his final defeat goes poof. And you know He, Satan, is reading that thar bible and has been reading every single iteration thereof from the moment of the ink hit the parchment (or whatever they used back in the days of Moses).
There can be no justice for the collateral damage of the fall if the damaged are punished as much or more harshly than the initial fallen. Especially when the pre-crime judge knew of the outcome of that booby-trapped tree well in advance of the creation.
If He does not know, then he loses all four omni abilities and becomes a non-god.
And the only reason the faithful call God good is that He declares himself good, therefore He must be good regardless of the abundant inspired evidence, in writing no less. And rebellious atheist souls as myself are abominations who question such a lofty declarative. And He declares this “good” many times in the bible.
I personally refuse to consider myself guilty of simply living. It’s preposterous and lends to much mental and health related suffering on a tremendous scale. Look at how many people suffer maladies because they feel they deserve nothing better. Silly that is.
I am a rebel. And I can see why Lucifer, the en-light-enment bearer rebelled too. I am not that ambitious, yet :-). For that he was banished, unless of course Isaiah 14 is talking of someone else like a human king as it never declares Lucifer directly, since he sought a higher throne than his creator.
By “leaning on The Word” you’re meaning “leaning on a literalistic interpretation of The Word”. I never said “In Hebrew this means this.”… I’m reading it according to context. Are their any Christian sects that teaches Jesus became a plant.(John 15:5)? or that Jesus turned into a door? (John 10:9) that I’m not aware of?. No. Because we understand the meaning based on the context.
If all we had in the story of Adam and Eve was God saying “If you eat of the tree thou shalt surely die.” <<< then of course the most logical conclusion would be physical death. But because I’ve read the story, I can plainly see that the emphasis is on shame, guilt, sin etc. This can be see when it says “They were both naked and not ashamed.”, when their eyes become “opened”, in A&E hiding behind a tree, Eve’s realization of her nakedness, their “covering of their shame” by sewing fig leaves, Adam blaming God because of the Woman God gave him, God’s “covering of their shame” with a coat of skins.
There’s no reason, to conclude that the death is a physical one, because of context. Did A&E instantaneously die? No. Did A&E instantaneously feel guilt, hide their shame, blame others for what they did wrong. YES. Now you know what death was being referred too. In this story God treats the spiritual death much more seriously than a physical one. No humans can escape that… but we can choose to have a relationship with God.
“The Tree of Life” <<< this probably means physical life, because that’s what the text implies. Unlike the prior Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which only implies a falling away from God, due to disobedience. Adam and Eve are created outside the Garden, and then brought into the Garden. At this point they are both mortal. But God gives them a choice: you can eat of the Tree of Life or the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If you eat of the latter, then you will experience death (maybe Adam and Eve viewed that to mean it was poisonous of some sort… but that wasn’t the point). A&E eat the fruit and lo and behold their still alive! (hmmm… but what is this feeling at the bottom of my gut that I did something wrong? hmmm… maybe God meant something deeper here.).
Furthermore it’s talking about the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Not the Tree of Life and the Tree of Death. So it’s not inconsistent to say that the Tree of Life is talking about a different kind of life, than the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is talking a different kind of death.
Where is the text that says A&E’s descendants will inherit death? Where is the text that says Adam’s off-spring was cursed? Or that their genes gave them the sinful nature? This is a personal story of a couple who fall away from God.
The Bible is not a perfect systematic theology. The library of books, were written by a multitude of different authors, in different places, in different times, with different personalities, and different stories to tell. All of them are dealing with their accounts with God, in their historical context. Not all books are written the same way. Some of it’s historical narrative, parables, proverbs, psalms, allegory, war texts, biographies, wisdom literature etc. One can’t read all these diverse books in the exact same way.
Not true. There are secular accounts of a man named Jesus who lived, who was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and secular historians who report of claims made by the disciples, that he rose from the dead.
The Roman historian and orator Tacitus (c.55-120 AD) is acknowledged as one of the best historians of his time. He writes of the sequel to the Fire of Rome in 64 AD:
“Therefore to squelch the rumor that Nero had started the Great Fire of Rome, Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called “Christians,” (a group) hated for their abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of horrendous and shameful practices from every part of the world converge and are fervently cultivated.” (Annals 15.44)
Born in 37 AD to a Jewish priestly family, Josephus was later adopted into the family of the Roman Emperor Vespasian. His writings contain references to James the Just and John the Baptist. But the most famous is the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’, concerning Jesus. Most scholars accept that this passage has been altered by a later Christian hand; but even if we strike out the suspect portions completely, we are still left with this, acknowledged as authentic by the vast majority of scholars:
“At this time there was Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who performed (surprising / wonderful) works, and a teacher of people who received the (truth / unusual) with pleasure. He stirred up both many Jews and many Greeks. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the leading men among us, those who had loved him from the first did not desist. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not extinct.”
Tacitus and Josephus are both non-Christians but they don’t deny the existence of Jesus, nor his crucifixion.
Citations in writings of the early church Fathers reveal that there were also references to Jesus in other secular works that are now lost to us. These include:
A letter by Justin Martyr to the Roman Emperor Antonius Pius, in which he cites the official ‘Acts of Pilate’ as corroboration for the crucifixion account.
A sceptical reference by Julius Africanus to an attempt by the first century historian Thallus to explain the darkness at the time of Jesus’ death in terms of a solar eclipse.
References by both Julius Africanus and Origen to a second century historian, Phlegon, who mentions the eclipse and accompanying earthquake, as well as acknowledging that Jesus had the ability to predict future events.
We have the entire text of a letter from Pliny the Younger, then governor of Bythinia, to the Emperor Trajan in about 112 AD, together with Trajan’s reply. In it Pliny reports on his interrogation and execution of Christians and asks whether he should spare those who recanted their faith, particularly in view of the large numbers of persons ‘of all ranks and ages, and of both sexes’ who had embraced ‘this contagious superstition’.
In about AD 170 Lucian of Samosata wrote “The Passing of Peregrinus”, a satire about a con-man who preyed on the supposedly gullible Christians. ‘These deluded creatures, you see, have persuaded themselves that they are immortal and will live forever, which explains the contempt of death and willing self-sacrifice so common among them. … from the moment they are converted, deny the gods of Greece, worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws, they are all brothers.’
This is historical evidence (not the same as scientific evidence).
I believe you’re putting words in my mouth. Reading any document whatsoever, and trying to understand that document is “interpreting it”. The Bible is not written like a car owner’s manual or a cake recipe. The “standard model of Christ” is pretty clear in the New Testament. All writers would agree that Jesus was crucified… that he stayed in the tomb for three days… and then rose from the dead. These are fundamental to the Christian faith. Simply because their are even more ancient passages in the Bible, and the fact that some of them are difficult to understand, does not negate the Bible as a whole, nor does it destroy the testimony of the NT authors about the person Jesus. That way of thinking is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Why should Islam, affect my faith in Christ? The prophet Mohammed came along 600 years later. His “custom interpretation” doesn’t affect me, because he didn’t live at the time Jesus was alive. Jesus pretty much said, “There will be false prophets and false Christs.” <<< so this is too be expected.
All Scripture is profitable for teaching and for correction. That doesn’t mean that every single passage, in every single context, was 100% the exact way we see things now. God has been known to “work within the culture”, and reveal himself through progressive revelation. All ancient cultures at that time, everywhere, were more-or-less “misogynistic” and mainly male-dominated. The Old Testament would not have been accepted, nor would it have survived the ages, if it straight out said “men and women are 100% equal”… which was very counter-intuitive at that time. The same is true for discussing things like gravity, or stars that are millions of light-years away, or atoms… it just would not have made sense to people and would have been pointless.
I didn’t say that Jesus SAID that men and women are equal. But how he treated women, in the culture he was brought up in, was counter-intuitive to his contemporaries. For instance, people gathered around Jesus, with a women in their midst and said “We have caught this woman in the act of adultery, shall we stone her?” And Jesus says, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”… then one by one the men leave, and Jesus says to the woman, “Your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more.”… The people in that day were perfectly in their lawful right to stone her. That was the law. But Jesus looked beyond that.
The first people who witness the tomb of Jesus being empty are women. Yet the testimony of women, in that day, wouldn’t count for anything in court. Jesus healed and performed miracles as readily for women, as for men. He taught both men and women. It didn’t matter what their religious credentials were, or their social standing, or their lifestyle. He loved people and interacted with them in a very welcoming way, men and women alike. This included thieves, prostitutes, lepers, women of low social class.
Jesus’ actions speak louder than words.
You’re statement here is an over-claim. Let’s read Ephesians 5:21-33 in context:
“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”
I’m not sure if you realize this, but as many times as Paul says “Wives submit to your husbands” Paul says “Husbands, love your wives as Christ has loved you” … Christ died for you. So Paul is saying, husbands, die for your wives, if need be. Have respect unto them. Love your wives as you love yourselves (sounds kinda like love your neighbor as yourself, right?). Paul was a product of his time… but his views towards women were much more radical in his day ‘n’ age. Jewish rabbies would often begin temple meetings with the words, “Blessed are thou, Oh Lord, for thou has not made me a woman.”
Paul’s main mission was to spread the Gospel… and knowing that God often picks flawed people to carry our his missions, it doesn’t mean that Paul’s views are 100% how we see things today. But even so… we can see Paul’s treatment of women is a huge step away from his contemporaries. This is the way God reveals himself… through progressive revelation.
Why do you think that would “touch a sensitive nerve”…? I’m not Catholic and I don’t worship Mary. In the Gospel of Luke, the angel does tell Mary, “Blessed art thou among women.” … and while this is a lofty statement it’s a far-cry from worship. Mary also says, “And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” … if Mary is a divine being she has no need for a savior. She is “blessed among women” because she is the only woman that gave birth to a Messiah.
Again… why such emphasis on suffering? Why does it matter that God knew in advance what would happen? If you were God what would you do? It still doesn’t negate the fact that God gave them both a choice to obey or not to obey. God still plans on a New Heaven and New Earth, where the former things will pass away, and every tear will be wiped away… I have a hard time understanding your emphasis on torture here…
The Gnostics taught that the serpent in Genesis 3 was the protagonist of the story. That what God really wanted was to keep all knowledge from humanity and that the serpent was the Good Guy that wanted to free humanity from an evil god. They also teach that God was lying, and the serpent was telling the truth.
Now… did I say I believed in any of this, in my dialogue?
Inspiration means that people were inspired to write. This is the “tension” that always been in Christian theology. That what we have is the word of God… but it’s also written by human authors. That Jesus is both human… but he’s also God.
God works within the culture. He doesn’t always correct the Israelites wrong conclusions. For instance in Exodus 20 it says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me… nor shall you bow down to them and serve them, but the Lord your God is a jealous God.” <<< this passage only makes sense if it’s assumed that the people it’s written too believed their was a pantheon of gods out there. God doesn’t say to them, “No that’s silly… I’m the only one.”. But in later passages such as in Isaiah it says, “There is none other beside me. I am God.” This is demonstrating the transition from monolatrism (the believe in many gods, but only one worthy of worship.) to monotheism (the believe in one God that’s behind the show). God accommodates to their knowledge at the time.
So when we read passages that say, “The earth rest on pillars” or “the waters behind the heavens” or “the sun that rises in the east and sets in the west.” we don’t see God correcting their numerous wrong conclusions about science. God’s purpose wasn’t to give a science lesson… but a lesson in salvation.
The way you talk is mainly vitriolic. I never said that God was a “lesser god”, but we do have fallible humans that write about God… you can’t expect humans to perfectly sum up something as immensely beyond our comprehension as a being that created the entire Universe. In the story of Noah, God doesn’t punish everyone based on the actions of two… he says that great violence was in the earth… and great wickedness. I’m assuming that means people were killing each other… not giving each other wedgies or making rude comments.
According to the story of Noah, he builds the ark for a hundred years… that’s a pretty long witness to people, to get their act together.
Who’s the “they”…? We aren’t talking about Hebrews here. We are talking about two people, specifically, that got kicked out of Eden. Which Hebrews are lamenting the fact that they got kicked out of Eden?
That animal sacrifices were only temporary, and wasn’t the main point. The point was for the Hebrews to follow God’s commands. The animal sacrifices were a testimony to how often sin impacted their lives, and how often they had to atone for it. In the New Testament we have Jesus, who takes the role of the continual animal sacrifices. As it says in the book of Hebrews, “The animal sacrifices were insufficient.”
The special promise got fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Though in an unexpected fashion. They assumed he was going to bring back the monarchy they had in David’s day. That the the Davidic Messiah would take care of their Roman persecutors. Instead Jesus gets persecuted by the Romans, and he gets raised up the third day, and begins an entirely new era in the world.
I don’t know what you’re talking about here?? God does not “yank the righteous of joyous heaven” and puts them back in the ground. The depictions of a “heaven in the clouds complete with harpists and golden gates.” is not apart of the Bible. That’s stuff that’s been added on. What we have is heaven coming DOWN to earth, in the book of Revelations. It’s not something “out there” but “down here”. Jesus’ depictions of people that die are “people that are asleep”… when he raises people up from the dead he says nonchalant things like “I will wake him up”. Paul uses similar language in his epistles. It’s not a depiction of dying and then instantly being in Heaven. It’s a depiction of dying … waiting for the judgement… rising up from the dead, in the New Heavens and New Earth. Paul says, “I show you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep but we shall all be changed. In the moment, in the twinkling of an eye.”
you are right Jesus did not say men and women are created equal, but God said:
Genesis 1:26-27 (NIV2011)
26 Then God said, “Let Us make humankind in Our Image, in Our Likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created humankind in His own Image, in the Image of God He created them;
MALE and FEMALE He created them.
Jesus was treating women as God the Father/Creator created them to be, not as His peers regarded them to be. We need to do likewise.
Before I start, even if I respond to quotes, like yours, I am writing to the audience in general, since I am the lone nasty vitriolic wolf amongst the faithful kind and loving sheep. So when you say “you are putting words in my mouth”, I am not, unless I directly state so. I will, in the future, be more of an editor and ensure, as best I can, to be clear as to whom I speak. Also, though I may word my efforts as if I believe the Word, it is simply to make a point about the fallacy of faith. I myself don’t believe any of it, but the faithful do and so I attack with such vitriolic veracity… so sorry… the foundation of the faith, God and the Curse. On with the show.
Back to TH quote. Interesting. So these pagan authors would write enough about Christ so that a person who is not exposed to the bible would… “be reborn Christian”? However the “one” passage by Tacitus has errors that lend to scholarly notions of fraud. For one, Pilot was a prefect not a procurator.
Also that Jesus was a descendant of David is of serious question in that the people of those days considered a woman’s lineage as of no effect. So Luke is supposedly stating that Mary is a descendant of David, and Matthew says Joseph is the descendent of David. In either case the people of those times (as many Christians, like TH, say the bible was written for those times, not ours… but I understood it is of timeless value… hmmmm) you have a problem in that women were simply a receptacle of sperm (considering those ancient people had no freaking idea about genetics) and therefore Jesus is not a descendent of David. Mary, even if a descendent of David is simply a holder of sperm. Joseph if he is a descendent of David is of no effect in that Mary was supposedly a virgin giving virgin birth (something rather common in popular pagan beliefs of that time, virgin birth, martyred savior, etc).
And Josephus, well he is writing about all the lineage of the Jews and wars and such and out of nowhere is a passage (Fitzgerald calls it a commercial, so I will), a commercial, for Jesus. Xians again grasping for proof via non-Xian sources. Commercial for Jesus in Josephus.
And Justin Martyr argued with pagans about Jesus tale as being no different to those the Zeus. “we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus).”… And Xian scholar Fermicus states after having great difficulty to define Xianity as unique falls to the usual excuse, like many Xians, it’s Satan’s lies that confuse. Satan is always the scapegoat when the Xian cannot refute or has difficulty with evolution, fossils, historicity, biblical confusion and such. “Satan is the great deceiver and he put the fossils in the ground.” or “God put the fossils in the ground to test the faith.”
Satan the deceiver. He reads the bible. He knows he loses. So all he has to do is, step back, just like God did in Genesis (he no longer walks amongst us).
Thallus and the impossibility of a solar eclipse during a full moon (gospels say the crucifixion is during a full moon) to cause the “darkness”. Also, it is common lore of the time that kings die during eclipses. And if the darkness was worldwide as Africanus claims then such a wide event would have certainly be recorded by Josephus.
It is interesting that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is ignored. It covers the mysterious time of Christ, birth to age of 12. Probably due to this passage. “O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. 3 And straightway that lad withered up wholly”… peaceful and turn the other cheek he does, yes/no? Aaa but he was but a sinless? child, yes/no?.. bit of a tangent there, sorry.
And Satan as the great deceiver stated truth in Gen 3, “ye shalt not surely die, for God doth know”. It is God who lies in Gen 2, “thou shalt surely die”. Now you, TH, say that that death is spiritual and that physical death and suffering were not leveled by God. Really? God tells them directly, from here on out you will suffer then die. And my “kick their a**** out of Eden” was so that they could not live forever Gen 3:22 and God made dang (censored for the sensitive) sure they could not reenter using Cherubims and a flaming (oh, wait that is the sword of truth) sword. Thus. God cursed humans to “live, suffer and die”, for there was not any suffering in Eden before the fall and A&E could not die since they ate of the other good tree. And if there was death in Eden, then what is the purpose of Eden and why have a tree of life within? It is through the fall of A&E that death both spiritual (I do not agree with that faulty interpretation, but what the heck) and physical, all corroborated by the word of God, the bible, that in your mind TH, is wrought with human error… is indeed handed down via the first humans, A&E, to all their descendants… hmmm… Gen 1, 2, and 3; Acts 3:21; Rom 5:12–21; 8:19–22; 1 Cor 15:22–55; Col 1:15–21 and Rev 21–22.
So, TH, which part of this Word is true and not with error? Just the parts a believer decides to follow based on the time the faithful lives in. Such as, “slavery of condoned in the bible”… but now, “slavery is condemned in the bible, and yes the Hebrews had slaves, but it was better to be a Hebrew slave then a Pagan’s slave.”. Why not just from the start, God say, yo slavery bad. Oh, no, can’t do that the Alpha and Omega can’t argue that point to his ignorant and numb chosen who violate all kinds of human dignity because they wouldn’t understand???
Thus again, 50 billion human souls have lived (discounting all the other life forms, still births, and such), suffered and died on this planet since Genesis, 6000 years ago. And if Genesis is just a myth, then “sin” being the horrible part of humans is simply a way for humans to level control upon each other by making each “guilty” and only worthy of “suffering” (as sweet little Mother Teresa was such a proponent of for those unfortunate to fall under her care) and that the only way out of all your woes is through a Christos who never existed.
And if Genesis is simply a myth and it is a tale of spiritual death then the rest of the bible is bogus, since it’s all about being saved to live forever in reconstituted human form worshipping God in the new heaven and earth. And though you TH, believe that the dead are asleep, as Jesus says, many other faithful, in fact the vast majority, believe in people rising to heaven (or in between places like purgatory, though the catholics are kinda letting that notion kinda slip) and watching down upon those they left behind.
You are very well read, ninksink, and so you must be well acquainted with the efforts to replace Original Sin with Original Blessing. What is your take on this? The fact that Teilhard and Mathew Fox, both Catholic priests who were chastised and considered rebels for teaching this ‘heresy’ ought to have some appeal to you.
Al Leo
After reading most of the recent posts, I would guess that at least 75% of the problems being discussed revolve around this question: How did evil get into the world that Genesis has God saying that His creation was good? I don’t blame the ancients for creating myths that include cunning serpents, rebellious angels, and a curse for disobedience. But with a greater knowledge of the natural world and of how humans appeared in it, I think we can propose a more realistic explanation of evil and how we should deal with it. As I have stated in previous posts, Original Blessing does not eliminate all the problems posed in these posts, but, in my opinion, it makes better sense than most.
When the head of a major Christian church (JPII) states that the evidence for the development of life on this earth points convincingly toward something very like neo-Darwinian evolution, I, along with many others, took notice. Of course, he added a codicil: “except for humans.” But when I also learned of the evidence from anthropology that humans appeared very suddenly from within the species Homo sapiens via some epigenetic change (the Great Leap Forward), this seemed to bring science and the inspired scripture (Genesis 1) more in line. And Genesis 1 ends with God creating A&E concurrently, advises them to procreate, and blesses them. All is good; not perfect but Good. Why not leave it there, and accept the fact that much or most of what we have declared as evil from a human perspective is not evil from God’s.
To say that evolution thru natural selection rewards “selfish genes” may not be strictly accurate, but it will serve for this argument. And as creatures evolved a nervous system that was aware that they were being preyed upon, the prey might well ‘think’ this was unjust and evil. By the time hominids evolved, this train of thought was firmly imbedded, but instinct still was the rule of the day. Creation of new forms of life was intrinsically dependent upon ‘agony and ecstasy’.
The next chapter of the story can be best told in terms of the fable of Pinnochio. Geppeto (God’s stand-in) had created from wood an attractive boy-puppet whose behavior was controlled solely by strings (instinct). As soon as Geppeto (or a good fairy) assigned Pinnochio a conscience (Jimminy Cricket) and Pinnochio paid attention to him, he became a truly human boy.
Why is this story unfit for children? As our children grow older, we can warn them that acting against the advice of conscience (a Gift, a Blessing) almost always results in dis-ease (of soul) and unhappiness here on earth (and presumable also in any afterlife.)
Al Leo
Al,
I think think the definition of evil had to wait a long time for the human mind to define it. Also the definition of evil changes constantly. And among various people. I bet that we here couldn’t agree on what is evil and what is not evil.
As far as Pinnochio, I loved that story as a child. It had meaning to me. (Don’t tell a lie) That’s all. I never believed it was real. I never believed Pinnochio really became a boy except in the story. Why? because Pinnochio and Geppeto never aged. Pinnochio is always a little boy puppet and Geppeto is a nice old man. Never aging, never dying. A story. At four years old, most realize this naturally unless told otherwise by an adult. The story is great when you read it to children and let them draw meaning from it.
It would be helpful if the questions of evil as understood by Christianity is correctly stated, and not as an ad hoc version that anyone cares to concoct. Put succinctly, God created a good creation and this included beings (humans, angels, or any creature you like) that had the capacity to choose and decide. God made it clear that He was the source of all goodness, and the choice was between choosing such good, or if not, seeking other than that good (which means the absence of good and God).
This means: (1) God does not somehow forces people as would a tyrant to do what he wants, (2) human agency includes a moral dimension and this has shown historically, to provide outcomes that we humans have understood as either good or evil, and (3) God has provided a means to again avoid evil and choose the good, by sending His Son for our sake.
Thus evil theologically is at its source, other-than-God’s goodness (or the absence of such). For example, Cane and Able could just as easily have lived without violence; there was no compulsion from any external sourc to commit murder. Simple logic will show from this, that evil must be invented or produced by those who choose other-than-the-good that God offered.
I cannot see the sense in treating “evil” as a something that comes into the world, or anywhere else - this is just plain wrong. Human agency includes the moral dilemma that reduces to a mixture of good and evil outcomes.
What do you say to people who identify sickness, disease, predation, disaster, etc. with evil (or at least not goodness)? That is the young earth question: How did everything else in nature get not good, if it started off good? Not everything that is called evil or not good can be traced to humanity’s moral agency.
The things you describe (such as, sickness, accidents, birth defects) are, within a Biblical context, aspects of coming from dust (earthly materials) and ending up as dust - that is what we are. Some of these may be traced to humanity’s moral agency, many would not.
I cannot understand the premise in your remark - it is clear that God created a particular place on this earth where Adam and Eve (as humanity) may not suffer such difficulties and afflictions, and He placed them in there. Surely this would indicate that outside of this place, such afflictions may occur.
If we expand the question to Nature and why God may create such Universe, we would need a new post and a separate debate - but I think I have addressed your point(s).
It’s not really my premise it’s the premise of those who envision a pre-Fall creation without any of those natural bad things and see all natural bad things as resulting from humanity’s disobedience. But you answered my question with the bolded, thanks.
I apologize for the misunderstanding. My aim wasn’t to say that non-biblical sources of Jesus would “cause one to be re-born”… it was only to say that the Bible isn’t the only literature that discusses Jesus, the person. One can argue about the claims made of Jesus: aka, turning water into wine, or walking on water etc. But before one goes into the fine details you have to discuss the primary claims and answer the major questions: Did Jesus Exist? Was he crucified? Were there reports of his Resurrection?
Jesus lived in a backwater town in Judea, in the first century AD. I’m not expecting a truckload of non-biblical sources that refer to him … but finding any outside sources, outside the Bible, that refer to Jesus is in my book a difficulty to explain as far as a corroboration to creating a fictional person.
The definition of a prefect, according to Dictionary.com is “a person appointed to any of various positions of command, authority, or superintendence, as a chief magistrate in ancient Rome or the chief administrative official of a department of France or Italy.” … the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 27, says that Pontius Pilate was the Governor of Judea… I’m not seeing a bit difference in definition to that of Prefect?
The definition of a procurator is “(1. Roman History. any of various imperial officials with fiscal or administrative powers.) (2. a cellarer.) (3. a person, as a deputy, attorney, or agent, employed to manage the affairs of another.)”
I think this particular point is making a mountain of a mole hill. Many people for a long a time thought that Pontius Pilate was pure fiction to begin with … now we have records that he did actually exist. http://www.bible-history.com/pontius_pilate/pilateArchaeology.htm <<<
The quotes I shared too to you were not exhaustive by any means. Just some quick references. The second time Josephus mentions Jesus is in Book 20 Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1 and there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus’ brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.
“But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”
According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage “has been almost universally acknowledged” by scholars. It it more authentic, I believe, than the first reference, as can be seen in the statement “the so-called Christ”. Whereas the previous reference called him “the Messiah”, indicating a Christian preference, of which he was not.
But even with the first Jesus passage, their are many that hold to the view of a “partial-authentication” of what is typically called the “Testimonium Flavianum” … there’s an interesting article about it online (though I’m not obligating you to do so) … Did Josephus Refer to Jesus <<< starting at The Testamonium Flavianum.
I haven’t yet watched the video, and I’ll try my best to get around to it. It’s understandable to me that there are those who doubt that he rose from the dead, or other such miracles that he did. But their are very few in the scholarly world that doubt the person, Jesus, existed at all.
(the following is pulled from an article online)
The amazing preservation of the New Testament documents can perhaps be appreciated best by comparing the evidence for their authenticity with that available for the works produced by the classical writers of antiquity.
One of the greatest textual critics of the past was F. H. A. Scrivener (1813-91). He did much to enhance the science of textual criticism, i.e., the restoration of the original text by the collation of ancient manuscripts (though his attempted defense of the Textus Receptus has been almost universally rejected). In 1883 (prior to numerous more recent manuscript discoveries), Dr. Scrivener wrote:
As the New Testament far surpasses all other remains of antiquity in value and interest, so are the copies of it yet existing in manuscript and dating from the fourth century of our era downwards, far more numerous than those of the most celebrated writers of Greece or Rome. Such as have been already discovered and set down in catalogs are hardly fewer than two thousand [more than five thousand now]; and many more must still linger unknown in the monastic libraries of the East. On the other hand, manuscripts of the most illustrious classic poets and philosophers are far rarer and comparatively modern. We have no complete copy of Homer himself prior to the thirteenth century, though some considerable fragments have been recently brought to light which may plausibly be assigned to the fifth century; while more than one work of high and deserved repute has been preserved to our times only in a single copy. Now the experience we gain from a critical examination of the few classical manuscripts that survive should make us thankful for the quality and abundance of those of the New Testament (1833, 3-4).<<<
In the late 1800s, Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921) of Princeton Theological Seminary, from the limited vantage point of his day, wrote:
The most astonishing thing about the manuscripts of the New Testament is their great number: as has already been intimated, quite two thousand of them have been cataloged upon the lists"“-a number altogether out of proportion to what antiquity has preserved for other ancient books (1898, 28).<<<
Commenting upon the comparison between the Bible and the classical writings, Andrew Archibald in 1890 declared:
None of the original manuscripts of the Bible have been preserved. Shall we therefore reject this book? As well might we throw away the works of Homer, who flourished from eight to nine hundred years before Christ, but of whose writings we have no complete copy older than the thirteenth century, and no fragments even older than the sixth century"“-fifteen centuries after the blind poet died. Of the history by Herodotus there is no manuscript extant earlier than the ninth century, but this historian lived in the fifth century before the Christian era. There is no copy of Plato previous to the ninth century, and he wrote considerably more than a thousand years before that (29).<<<
In more recent times, the late F. F. Bruce, who served as professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, stated:
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians.
Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS [manuscripts], but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC – AD 17) only thirty-five survive, these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depend entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works Dialogus de Oratoribus, Agricola, Germania all descend from a codex of the tenth century. The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to C. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 480-425 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals (1960, 15-17).<<<
An abundance of additional material on the manuscript availability for the classical writings can be found in F. W. Hall’s Companion to Classical Texts.
The accumulation of manuscript evidence has been so vast and the work of the scientific textual critic so precise, that we may express complete confidence in the reliability of the New Testament text. While it is true that some minor manuscript variations exist, they are negligible. Westcott and Hort felt that the significantly debatable portions of the New Testament text could hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole—the equivalent of a little more than half a page in the Greek New Testament (Thiessen 1955, 77).
Let me emphasize how impressive this fact really is. The New Testament documents have been in existence almost nineteen hundred years. For fifteen of these centuries they were replicated solely by hand. In spite of this, there are only some twelve to twenty significant textual variations in the entire New Testament, and none of these affect an important doctrinal matter. On the other hand, consider the works of William Shakespeare. These writings have existed less than four centuries (and since the invention of the printing press) and yet:
In every one of Shakespeare’s thirty-seven plays there are probably a hundred readings still in dispute, a large number of which materially affect the meaning of the passages in which they occur" (Hastings 1890, 13; emphasis original).<<<
Actually to me this puts greater emphasis on its authenticity. In Matthew’s genealogy, chapter 1, there are many women and people of mixed genes mentioned — very contrary at that time, where Jews wanted to emphasize “the purity of one’s genes” and women were very seldom mentioned in genealogies. Some of the women were Tamar (a most likely Canaanitish woman) and Ruth (a Moabite). This is demonstrating a transition and a new era of thinking — one that forgoes the idea that God’s chosen people are just people belonging to a specific bloodline. God’s chosen people are those that follow him (no matter ethnicity or nationality).
I think you are proposing a false dichotomy here. The discovery of genes is a very recent discovery — does that mean that a woman is no longer your ancestor because she was just “a receptacle of sperm” … ? I’m confused with this remark? A woman isn’t just a receptacle of sperm anyway… her genes mix with the genes of the man. Jesus is the descendant of David through his mom, biologically, and through his father Joseph, legally. Genesis 3:15 says “the seed of the woman”… there’s no other place in the Old Testament that uses this language. The “begetting” is always from the father, not the mother… it’s perfectly logical to put emphasis on Mary in this scenario. How is Jesus not the son of David?
Can you back this up with some sources? This claim is very popular, but I don’t see you adding evidence to this statement in that the situation with Jesus is similar to other beliefs at the time?
Like I said earlier, most people agree that that particular statement is most likely a Christian forgery. However, many also believe it’s a “twisting” of his original statement, of which is it partially authentic. Most Christians don’t refer to Jesus as a “wise man” as they believe he was both God and man. Josephus probably didn’t not call Jesus “the messiah” because in other places he calls him “the so-called Christ” indicating he did not believe the claims made about him, but did acknowledge his existence.
I’ve never read the works of Justin Martyr so I can’t accurately give a comment on that. However in the Book of Acts Paul and Barnabas perform a miracle healing of man who was crippled from his birth. Paul heals him and the people cry out, “The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius,” then later Paul says, “Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.” … though Paul did the healing he refused to be worshiped for the power that he received was from God.
I’ve heard that Christianity is false, but scarcely have I heard that Christianity is not unique. Were it not so, I don’t see that it has survived for 2,000 years, is the source of hope for many, and is one of the most popular religions today?? If it’s so unoriginal and “old hat” then why is it still here? I know of no religion that has a Messiah, willingly choosing to dwell a-midst the lowly, as a typical carpenter, and then dying for the world because he so loved it?
I know that you are not directly referring to me, and I’m sorry that I gave you that impression earlier. But I think it’s disingenuous to paint with such a broad brush that ALL Christians behave as such when faced with difficulties. Yes, their are Christians that argue that Satan put fossils in the ground to test people’s faith … but I’m pretty sure this is a much more minority belief … aka its the exception, not the rule.
I can’t comment on this specific point for I have no put a lot of study into it. Let’s hypothetically say that the celestial event is totally false, and the Gospels added it for literary effect, or something other (not saying that’s the case, just giving the hypothetical) … it still does not damage the claims of them witnessing the resurrection of Jesus. Many of which did not even recognize him at first (an odd motif, by the way, to add to a fictional account). It still does not explain Paul’s 180 conversion of killing Christians … and then out of nowhere becoming Christianity’s biggest supporter?
I’ve read the Gospel of Thomas, but I don’t recall that part. The one I read was a collection of sayings by Jesus Christ. The major impression I got was that the Gospel of Thomas was from a Gnostic branch of Christianity that came later. Same with the Gospel of Peter.
It’s a misconception that the other Gospels were thrown away, burned, buried in the ground, kept hidden from the public, etc. for the purpose of keeping one consistent particular view of Christ around. The canonical Bible formed of it’s own accord — some were chosen and other discarded, to fit in accordance with the writings most likely written in the time of the events. If the writings came 100+ years after the events took place, it would be subject to more skepticism of the authenticity of the account.
Yes… God barred them from the Tree of Life so that they would not gain immortality after corrupting themselves. They lost their chance. As I said before it’ a “spiritual death” because they did not die right then, as they ate the fruit. I think you’re making the assumption that Adam and Eve were created immortal, when the text does not say whether they were mortal or immortal — why have a Tree of Life in the garden if they were already created immortal? Adam and Eve will return to the ground (physically die) because they no longer had access to the Tree of Life — as is made clear by the cherubims and the flaming sword. Also like I said previously we do not have a Tree of Life and a Tree of Death. We have a Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil… why is it so hard to believe that the death being referred too in Tree #2 is a spiritual one, and the Tree of Life is a physical one? Of course Adam and Eve will return to the ground… they no longer have access to the Tree of Life!
I’ve never heard anyone claim that the Flaming Sword is “the sword of truth” … though it does follow a recurring theme in the Bible with associating “fire imagery” with either angels or God.
God spoke to Moses through a burning bush. He lead the Israelites through the wilderness as a pillar of fire. The seraphims in Isaiah 6 hold in their hands a burning piece of coal etc.
The key here is “in Eden” … the descriptions of the garden in Eden is a rather paradisaical place. It was a safe haven for them. But as the narrative goes… God gave them a choice.
Hmmm… I’m trying to understand your statement here. I didn’t say that there was death in Eden, but it could be true that there was death outside of Eden… God’s exile seems to demonstrate that. The purpose of Eden is a place that Adam and Eve could have lived in indefinitely if they so desired (as well all know they chose otherwise). The Tree of Life, like I said, probably gave them immortality, as is emphasized by the Cherubims barring the re-entrance to the garden.
I’m sorry that you feel that way, but the interpretation seems sound to me based on my previous points. Adam and Eve did not physically die right when they are from the tree, but they did instantly feel shame, guilt, remorse, etc. I don’t believe I said that the Word of God is “wrought with human error” … but only that it’s written by human authors, and like all other Christians have to deal with, is the possibly of errors in it. If God so wanted a 100% perfect text, then why not just have it fall from the sky, instead of getting fallible people to write it down?
You quote Romans 5:12-21. Paul is comparing Adam to Jesus in these passages. You follow the ways of Adam and you will die. You follows the ways of Jesus and you will have eternal life. In either case you are still going to die (the first time)… verse 14 says: “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.” <<< If the transgression of Adam strictly equals physical death then why does Paul say “nevertheless death reigned from Adam to MOSES”…? Was Paul unaware that people were living and dying past the time of Moses, 1,500 years up until the time he’s writing this letter? Or is he making a point about how falling away from God started with Adam and continued ever since, even to the time of Moses when the commandments were written.
I’m writing this on my phone, so I will have to get to the other parts of your message later.
We may need to develop a forum disclaimer: “Strenuous thumb exercise is not for everyone. Consult your doctor before getting sucked into long discussions when you are away from a standard keyboard. BioLogos cannot be held responsible for “Smart-phone Thumb” injuries sustained during normal use of the forum.”
